Information

Organizer 1: Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)Organizer 2: Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)Organizer 3: Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

Description: Recently a number of countries have endorsed an internet governance model based on the concept of “network sovereignty.” This model holds that governments should have total control of the internet within their borders. This includes being able to monitor the flow of information, control the type of content that is accessible, and having access to data of users within their jurisdictions. Network sovereignty’s biggest backers, often non-democratic regimes, contend that these capabilities are necessary for law enforcement and social cohesion. However, the network sovereignty model of governance stands in stark contrast to the UN IGF’s vision of a multistakeholder-governed internet that includes joint decision-making by civil society, government, the private sector, and the technical community. Human rights advocates believe that it endangers the rights of citizens by enabling government censorship and surveillance, and ultimately impinges human rights and a pluralistic governance of the internet. The tension between network sovereignty and multistakeholder model of internet governance is playing out most strongly in many countries. This round table will take stock of where and why network sovereignty rationales are growing. It will also examine the concrete impacts that network sovereignty laws and policies will have on civil society, journalists, and the private sector. The speakers include individuals from Africa, South Asia, North America, and the Middle East representing different stakeholder groups including, civil society and the technical community. This session will also encourage participants to strategize how digital rights advocates can work together to preserve the open, democratic and multistakeholder model of the internet.

Expected Outcomes: The goal of this workshop is to take stock of where around the globe "network sovereignty" is growing in popularity and overtaking the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance, and why. Examples and accounts will come from speakers and participants - both onsite and online. A secondary goal of this workshop is to strategize how digital rights advocates can push back against efforts to weaken mutlstakeholder internet governance.

Policy Question(s):

What will be the consequences to a global, unified internet if the ideology of "network sovereignty" increases in popularity among nation-states? In other words, what happens if the global internet becomes fragmented by nation-states as they attempt to exert unilateral control of networks within their borders?

How might "network sovereignty" policies impact long-term social and economic development worldwide?

What will the impact be on freedom of expression and freedom of assembly?

Is "network sovereignty" beneficial or detrimental in terms of private sector innovation?

What are the implications for circulation of news and information?

If "network sovereignty" is not compatible with a multistakeholder model of interest governance, what is the role of civil society, technical communities, and multilateral organizations to make sure that our current form of internet governance is maintained?

Relevance to Theme: The policies and laws associated with a so-called "network sovereignty" are most pronounced in regard to data governance, which is why data localization is one of the hallmarks of network sovereignty. By mandating the localization of user data, governments are able to ensure that they have easier access to such content. This enables monitoring and surveillance that otherwise would be much more difficult to enact. A truly open and interoperable internet will inherently govern data in a slightly different way. Thus, the central tension between "network sovereignty" and a multi-stakeholder governed internet revolves around data governance.

Relevance to Internet Governance: Whether the internet continues to be one, global, inter-operable network is a fundamental issue of relevance to internet governance. This issue is of particular concern right now as cyber-security concerns and other national sovereignty concerns revolving around controlling the online information space have increased popularity of "network sovereignty" governance models in some countries.

Discussion Facilitation:

This session is meant to be highly interactive and take advantage of the overwhelming expertise of IGF participants - both onsite and online. The onsite moderator will begin the round table by allowing each of the invited speakers to introduce themselves and talk about their perspective of the issue for no more than 3-5 minutes. The moderator will then ask one follow-up question for the entire panel. After this initial discussion, the floor will be opened to questions from audience members - both onsite and online. The goal is to generate a lively discussion in which a variety of perspectives are aired.

Online Participation:

This session will have a dedicated online moderator who will make sure that all comments and questions submitted online are shared with the audience onsite. This online participation tool is particularly important for this session as one of our goals it to have a set of perspectives that are geographically diverse. Many of the individuals and groups concerned with news media sustainability in the digital age will not necessarily be able to travel to Berlin for the IGF, so we will prioritize their participation via the online platform.

Proposed Additional Tools: Workshop organizers will highly promote this session on social media (Twitter and Facebook). We will encourage people to use the official online participation tool as this makes it easier to track comments and questions.

SDGs:

GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Report

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations:

What will be the consequences to a global, unified internet if the ideology of "network sovereignty" increases in popularity among nation-states? In other words, what happens if the global internet becomes fragmented by nation-states as they attempt to exert unilateral control of networks within their borders?

How might "network sovereignty" policies impact long-term social and economic development worldwide?

What will the impact be on freedom of expression and freedom of assembly?

Is "network sovereignty" beneficial or detrimental in terms of private sector innovation?

What are the implications for circulation of news and information?

If "network sovereignty" is not compatible with a multistakeholder model of interest governance, what is the role of civil society, technical communities, and multilateral organizations to make sure that our current form of internet governance is maintained?

2. Discussion Areas:

There was broad support among panelists for increased efforts to ensure that the internet remains one, interoperable global network. All speakers opposed so-called "network sovereignty" advocated by some governments which give them total control over information and data flows within their geographic jurisdiction. This policy position was deemed to be in diametric opposition to the type of multi-stakeholder internet governance endorsed by IGF processes. Some speakers noted the impact internet fragmentation would have an human rights, such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, while others noted the detrimental economic impact of limiting information flows. Audience members espoused concern not only about government control of the internet, but also the growing dominance of US-based tech platforms. Panelists agreed that this is a parallel concern, and should also be addressed by an increased emphasis on truly multi-stakeholder governance.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

There was broad agreements that "network sovereignty" doctrine needs to be challenged by research and reporting that shows how it is detrminental to human rights and social progress. Audience members suggested the creation of a Dynamic Coalition to address the challenge. Panelists noted that one of the core ways to address this is by strengthening multi-stakeholder governance and forums like the IGF. Discussions around IGF Plus are one venue where this can addressed. Likewise, there was agreement that developing countries needed more assistance in developing tech policy - right now they often replicate what others governments are doing without always understanding the consequences. This is, in fact, one way that "network sovereignty" policies are spreading in developing countries.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

The Open Internet for Democracy Initiative (https://openinternet.global) has a fellowship program this year where six fellows from six developing countries are doing research and analysis of how network sovereignty are impacting human rights in their countries. These individuals are looking to partners with others who are working on similar lines of research.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

There is broad hope that discussion around IGF Plus will include strengthening multi-stakeholder governance and will incorporate more capacity building opportunities for officials from developing countries. This challenge of internet fragmentation is one that will play out over the medium and long-term, so there is no immeadiate fix. This is why building broader, more inclusive governance structures are important.

The session resulted in a number of researchers and policy analysts from different parts of the world (both panelists and audience members) connecting after the session was over to find ways to collaborate going forward. The hope is that this will lead to more IGF panels next year based on research and reporting on the threat that internet fragmentation poses to an open, globally interoperable internet.